1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. COMP.LANG.FORTH

  • Re: Nested definitions (was: Parsing timestamps?)

    From albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl@21:1/5 to ruvim.pinka@gmail.com on Wed Jul 2 13:37:27 2025
    In article <1042s2o$3d58h$1@dont-email.me>,
    Ruvim <ruvim.pinka@gmail.com> wrote:
    On 2025-06-24 01:03, minforth wrote:
    [...]

    For me, the small syntax extension is a convenience when working
    with longer definitions. A bit contrived (:= synonym for TO):

    : SOME-APP { a f: b c | temp == n: flag z: freq }
    \ inputs: integer a, floats b c
    \ uninitialized: float temp
    \ outputs: integer flag, complex freq
     <: FUNC < ... calc function ... > ;>

    BTW, why do you prefer the special syntax `<: ... ;>`
    over an extension to the existing words `:` and `;`

    : SOME-APP
    [ : FUNC < ... calc function ... > ; ]
    < ... >
    ;

    In this approach the word `:` knows that it's a nested definition and
    behaves accordingly.

    Or it has not even know it, if [ is smart enough to compile a jump to
    after ]. (That was the idea of the 4 brackets of the apocalypse.)
    The advantage that you need not modify any defining word.

    Ruvim

    --
    The Chinese government is satisfied with its military superiority over USA.
    The next 5 year plan has as primary goal to advance life expectancy
    over 80 years, like Western Europe.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)